D&D (2024) Why is wotc still aiming for PCs with 10 *real word* feet of range? W/o vision range penalty/limit rules for the GM?

[Raiztt]

Ah, so if the archer didn't have sharpshooter, then the battle would have continued?

No - it wouldn't - but sharp shooter has other benefits than just the range issue. You act like that feat is WORTHLESS without the range component. BUT even if it was worthless... it wouldn't be the first feat to be worthless now would it?

 

[Stalker0]

Frist off I would not do that. I would enquire about cover.
If there is hard cover nearby or a reverse slope, I would lead the party there and commence long range fire when I have a reasonable chance of hitting.
Alternatively I would go to ground, hide in the long grass and again wait to open fire at an opportune time.

The rest of the party should hide also. Ideally make use of cover. let them close in and ambush.


On the other hand at the initial observation, the ranger could cast Pass without Trace and the party evades the encounter.

Again we are coming back to the same argument of "well you really shouldn't be having encounters at those ranges".

And I agree! Which is why the simplest way to communicate to the DM and players that encounters should not happen at those ranges....is to remove the range! If the longest range thing in the game is 200 feet, congratulations you won't have to even consider if players would try to start fights at 600 feet.

Also keep in mind we are having this conversation at the same time that our newest playtest package has introduced several new long range options for wizards and sorcerers. And I'm sorry, but if players are given the ability to do things at long ranges....but never actually do them....they are going to feel like that ability is wasted (because it was!). So if its just a bad idea to be doing fights at these ranges (either because its boring, or because smart enemies won't ever do it, etc)....then lets just nip it in the bud and remove these extreme ranges.

I'm just flabbergasted that we keep defending these extreme ranges, but then every counter argument explains how extreme range combats are just silly and shouldn't be happening. Except you also forget we all aren't seasoned dms with years of experience under our belts. Maybe a new dms goes "hmmm ok bow range is 600 feet, maybe it will be cool to have a shootout at long range!"..... and then sulks at a super boring fight where half of his players were complaining with arms crossed while only the archer is having any fun.

 

[Raiztt]

I'm just flabbergasted that we keep defending these extreme ranges, but then every counter argument explains how extreme range combats are just silly and shouldn't be happening. Except you also forget we all aren't seasoned dms with years of experience under our belts. Maybe a new dms goes "hmmm ok bow range is 600 feet, maybe it will be cool to have a shootout at long range!"..... and then sulks at a super boring fight where half of his players were complaining with arms crossed while only the archer is having any fun.

Thats called learning, my dude

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Again we are coming back to the same argument of "well you really shouldn't be having encounters at those ranges".

And I agree! Which is why the simplest way to communicate to the DM and players that encounters should not happen at those ranges....is to remove the range! If the longest range thing in the game is 200 feet, congratulations you won't have to even consider if players would try to start fights at 600 feet.

Also keep in mind we are having this conversation at the same time that our newest playtest package has introduced several new long range options for wizards and sorcerers. And I'm sorry, but if players are given the ability to do things at long ranges....but never actually do them....they are going to feel like that ability is wasted (because it was!). So if its just a bad idea to be doing fights at these ranges (either because its boring, or because smart enemies won't ever do it, etc)....then lets just nip it in the bud and remove these extreme ranges.

I'm just flabbergasted that we keep defending these extreme ranges, but then every counter argument explains how extreme range combats are just silly and shouldn't be happening. Except you also forget we all aren't seasoned dms with years of experience under our belts. Maybe a new dms goes "hmmm ok bow range is 600 feet, maybe it will be cool to have a shootout at long range!"..... and then sulks at a super boring fight where half of his players were complaining with arms crossed while only the archer is having any fun.

I do not know if you have read the OP. This thread is not about defending these ranges but initially confusion as to what the OP was about, sugestions to the OP.
This particular tangent it one of your making as far as I can tell.

 

[tetrasodium]

Can you possibly be even a smidgeon consistent for one fraction of a second? You've been talking about physical table space for battlemaps, and now you're talking about everyone sitting around using VTTs.

They are inseparable because it doesn't matter if you have ten feet of tablespace compressed into a screen or ten feet of table space failing to fit on a battlemat/table, you still have player abilities wildly out of scale with the game system & tools provided to the GM. That's the reason why the ways VTT's exacerbate the problems caused by the failure of design to consider tablespace has been mentioned in posts 1 33 & 88. When you try to dismiss the problem with a statement like

Spoiler: this

Why are you putting an encounter like that on the tabletop? And if for some reason you desperately want to get the most out of your mini figures, why not just place the PCs at one end of the table and the opponents at the other, with a piece of paper in between them stating the current intervening range?

blaming the resulting problems for that design on the GM it becomes relevant once more that VTTs simply obliviate the excuse to blame the GM in a way that will encourage some level of pushback or frustration from players.

And what information are these players being denied? They don't have to all shut down their laptops just because you're using TotM. Precise positioning isn't going to be particularly relevant at those ranges.

Do you really need to ask what kinds of information gets lost when moving from grid to ToTM in a thread where people are throwing around accusations of GM skill problems? If you don't have the experience to know the answer here's a few just off the top of my head.... precise positioning needed for flanking based abilities sneak attack & pack tactics, positioning needed for judging the impact & need of AOEs Control abilities etc, anything that requires line of sight, etc.

If it's "positioning isn't going to be relevant at those ranges" it seems like you are endorsing one of two different problems... Either the entire encounter ends before the melee & shorter range PCs can close, which is obviously a problem for those players -OR- the fight closes to a range allowing those players where it switches back from ToTM to tactical grid to participate and those players immediately begin grousing about how they would have done this or that differently if they had seen X or how the positioning should be different because of these other reasons. Neither of those is a problem reasonable for the system to the to create for the GM by providing players with abilities far outranging anything reasonable

You can plonk down some tokens on a blank battlemap without bothering about positioning them if you need it to track turn order and HPs, I didn't see anyone suggesting otherwise. And again, you can plonk the PCs' tokens down on one end of the map and the opponents' on the other and put a big "<====== 600 feet ======>" notation in between them, the same as you could on a physical table.

Again this is a problem that has been explained in posts 1 33 & 88, when you start using a VTT it goes from a hack trying to fit unreasonable ability ranges to the realities of gameplay to "I could show you that, but I won't" the second a player wants to do something that impacts anything in thay cutout.

 

[Reef]

Because sometimes those ranges make sense. Maybe not for every fight. (See my comments on large scale combat earlier). Maybe not because of fights in general. Maybe it’s so your Sharpshooter has a chance to be awesome and snipe the guard on top of the cliff. Just as an example.

It’s like asking “Only one of my characters can swim! What happens when I sink their boat? Why even have swimming rules if I can’t do that?”

 

[Reef]

@tetrasodium, what are you asking exactly? That the rules arbitrarily limit character vision to something that will fit on a reasonable sized battlemap? I can hear the players screaming from here: “what do you mean I can only see 200’? It’s a featureless plain!”

I don’t see why you can’t just change the grid scale. I seem to recall SKT did that for the giant’s holds. Instead of 5’, each square was 20’.

 

[Irlo]

I fully support reducing those long ranges, either officially in the next update or unofficially by any DM who wants to make the change. Great idea! Do it.

I inferred from the initial post that the idea was to pile on disadvantages and negative modifiers to make those long range attacks so ineffective and undesirable that players would never use them. That’s the wrong approach, IMO. Don’t add tools that allow a DM to effectively ban options they don’t want to allow. Just make the call.

I’m realizing that it’s time for me to host a player appreciation pizza party to show my gratitude that I don’t have people in my house who whine so much that I feel like I need official rules to give me cover for decisions I make at the table.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Again we are coming back to the same argument of "well you really shouldn't be having encounters at those ranges".

Aside from the OP was anyone in the thread claiming that they ran encounters at those ranges?

And I agree! Which is why the simplest way to communicate to the DM and players that encounters should not happen at those ranges....is to remove the range! If the longest range thing in the game is 200 feet, congratulations you won't have to even consider if players would try to start fights at 600 feet.

As I said before

Again, I say, how often does this come up? I cannot remember it ever being in an issue in all my years of playing.

This is despite the range being in the PHB since forever. I do not believe that this is a real issue.

Also keep in mind we are having this conversation at the same time that our newest playtest package has introduced several new long range options for wizards and sorcerers. And I'm sorry, but if players are given the ability to do things at long ranges....but never actually do them....they are going to feel like that ability is wasted (because it was!). So if its just a bad idea to be doing fights at these ranges (either because its boring, or because smart enemies won't ever do it, etc)....then lets just nip it in the bud and remove these extreme ranges.

I am fine with the long ranges in the game. They make sense from a world building perspective. Not everything has to be about the tactical grid.

 

[Stalker0]

I am fine with the long ranges in the game. They make sense from a world building perspective. Not everything has to be about the tactical grid.

The olympic record for javelin throwing is 321 ft, yet the max range in 5e is "only" 120.

I mean if we are going to set the "realistic" range of a bow to its absolute maximum, might as well do it for everything right?